313tbatc# mai 1roccrlii1I0 in 13:cili2l:lira.

1. RussiAN LOAN. Mr. RoMNSON member for Worcester, had intended that the House should be called over on Thursday, on the occasion of the Russian Loan being discussed ; and he persisted, not- withstanding the disinclination of the House, in pressing his motion. It was, however, defeated, on a division, by 146 to 73.

Immediately after this preliminary division, Lord ALTITORP rose to Maove that the House should go into Committee for the purpose of

considering the Convention of the 16th November 1831, which was presented on the 27th ult. his Lordship made a brief statement of the facts of the ease— In 1815, a treaty had been entered into between the King of the Netherlands, this country, awl tlw Emperor of Russia, whereby the King of the Netherlands and the King of Great Ilritain took upon themselves the payment of a loan due from Russia. It was not for him now to say whether the making of this treaty originally was right or wrong ; it would be sufficient thr him if he showed that this treaty was binding in honour and in justice at the present tine. The second article of the treaty provided that Great Britain and the King of the Netherlands should continue to pay the interest of the loan, at the rate of 5 per cent., with a sinking fund of 1 per cent, until the loan should he extinguished ; but with this condition, that if a separation should take place between Belgium and Holland, the payment was then to cease.

A separation of these states had now taken place ; and the question arose, was that separation such a one as was contemplated in the treaty? Lord Althorp was decidedly of opinion that it was not— It appeared to him, that the separation contemplated by the treaty was one 'which should take place by means of a foreign force. This was manifest from the great objections of the parties to it at the time, and from the apprehensions tntertained of the power of France ; from which it was plain, that the separa- tion contemplated was no other than one which should be effected by a tbreign rower. This was confirmed also by the Secret Treaty entered into at the saute time ; one article of which declared, " That supposing an enemy should ever be in possession of Belgium for the space of one year, still the payments under the other treaty should be continued." Nothing whatever had been said of any ether description of separation.

It was quite true, that to the separation recently effected, Russia was a consenting party ; but she was so at the express solicitation of Great 33ritai n— Could it he said, if a party engaged in a treaty for a certain object, and if to that treaty a condition was annexed, the fulfilment of which was agreed upon not to be enforced,—could it be sail that the party at whose instance the condi- tion had been abandoned, was at lilwrty to turn round and say, " I won't fulfil my bargain ; I stand on the letter of the contract, I will not abide by its spirit!" it appeared to him that this was so contrary to every principle of honour, that such a course of conduct could not be contemplated in any country.

. He noticed the date of the treaty, and the date of its being laid be- fore the House, for the purpose of explaining, that it was not until the latter period that the ratifications were exchanged, without which the convention was incomplete. The fact that the separation of Belgium and Holland was not complete until recognized by Russia and the other powers, was the reason why Ministers had not previously come down to Parliament to request its sanction of the payments under the treaty, 'which, up to the moment of that separation, was binding even in its letter.

He had now stated the circumstances of the case, and he felt a difficulty in conceiving on what grounds any gentleman who wished to support the national faith ("Hear, hear !" from the Ministerial, re-echoed from the Opposition side) would object to enable his Majesty's Government to confirm and to act won this treaty. He said so, because he could not conceive that any gentleman would get up and recommend this country to take advantage of the mere letter a the engagement ; nor could he apprehend that any one would say that any nation could take such an advantage without a sacrifice of national honour. It would be very difficult for him to argue this case, and take up these, the only grounds which could be offered in opposition to his opinions. (A laugh from ,Sir Charles Wetherell.) Sir Charles Wetherell might take a more legal view a this subject ; but if he took it in its equitable and honourable bearing, he did mot think that Sir Charles, or any other member, could say that we were not guilty of a breach of faith towards Russia, if we were now to abandon our engagements to her. These were the grounds on which he hoped the House would authorize his Majesty's Government to perform the contract into which they had advised his Majesty to enter.

He concluded by noticing the consequences of that vote of censure of which Mr. Herries had given notice— Re was most anxious, for the sake of the honour of the country, that the house should enable the Government to fulfil their engagements. He was more anxious upon this ground than on account of the vote of censure of which notice had been given, because, although the ultimate result of successful opposition to the present motion and the carrying of a vote of censure would be the same,— namely, the upsetting of the Government,—yet the former would have in addi- tion an effect much more disastrous, that of destroying the national character of P-ngland..

Mr. FIEURIES prefaced his amendment to Lord Althorp's motion, by an expression of surprise that explanations and apologies had not been ontaneously given by Government in respect to the publication of documents that bore on the face of them such a remarkable contradic- tion of the vote formerly come to on this subject, when the evidence sots not before the House— On the 26th of January, a solemn discussion took place upon this subject,— namely, whether the Treasury were justified by the convention and by the law to issue money on account of the Russian Loan in Holland? Two hundred and twenty-nine thought it had no such power; two hundred and forty-nine, in- cluding those who were now accused of the illegality, were of a different opi- pion. Such was the state of the case; but there, and throughout the country,

it wasfelt that the real opinion of the Howse was that the measure was illegal. The decision was, indeed, otherwise; but had they then the papers, this could' not have come to pass.

He quoted Vattel and Grotius, to prove that, according to the dicta of those writers, no latitude of interpretation was permissible in public • treaties, where the meaning of an article was manifest. He contended, on this authority, that Ministers were not justified in continuing pay-. meats, by virtue of their interpretation of the intention of the treaty, where the words of it were plainly against such payments. He traced the history of these payments, and of the convention which followed—

In the month of July 1831, the law-officers of the Crown were called upon for their opinion, whether, after the separation of Belgium from Holland, Ministers would be authorized to continue the payments of the Russian-Dutch loan ; and the law-officers gave their opinion in the affirmative, and the Treasury paid the money. Four months after, as the documents recently laid before them showed, and when another nvment was almost due, Ministers acted in the very _teeth of this opinion of their law-officers, and ...concluded a convention with Russia, in the preamble of which it is stated, as if in mockery of the legal opinion they profess to have acted upon, that the King of England and the Emperor of all

the Russias consider that the events which have occurred in the Netherlands since 1831 have changed altogether the circumstances under which the letter of the convention was framed. In the face of their own declarations, and of the opinions of their official law-advisers, Ministers entered into a convention which pro (onto was equivalent to a declaration that the separation of Bel-

gium from Holland released them from a continuation of the payment to Russia. But, said the noble lord, the provisions of this convention may be changed, for it was not binding till duly ratified. He was au-are that the stipulations of a

treaty were not binding, and might be changed till it was ratified ; but he AVOUld maintain that the truths, the facts on which the preamble was based, could not be changed. If the noble lord said that such and such was the fact, no opinion

of the Emperor of Russia could alter or affect it; and vet the noble lord stated for fact what the convention could not bear out. And this brought him to the next stage of the proceeding—tlw convention of the Ifith of November 1831 ; which, as he had stated, wits pro tanto a nullification of the opinion of the law- officers. In that convention it was stated, that the " high contracting parties feel that, as the separation of Belgium from Holland hail taken place, the spirit did not correspond with the letter of the fanner convention, and that therefore they should enter into a new one." In the face of this admission of the fact, that the altered relations of the Netherlands put an end to the conditions of the pay- ment of the loan, the Treasury, in the succeeding December, issued an order for the payment of the January instalment of the loan. And here he begged the House to bear in mind the order of dates. In July, Ministers call upon the law-officers for their ophdon, as to whether Ministers were authorized to con- tinue the payments after the separation of Holland and Belgium. In November, as if no such opinion was delivered—or rather, as if it were the reverse of its real tendency—they enter into a convention which nullifies that opinion ; and, lastly, they a second time act upon the law officers' opinion ; and when that opinion is questioned in January, by that high constitutional authority Lord Granville, they again take the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General and the Judge Advocate-General, in order to persuade that noble lord to give Ida official sanction, as Auditor of the Exchequer, to the issuing of the payment; and as if they had not themselves, by implication, condemned that opinion in the preceding November.

After =tieing the argument of Lord Palmerston on the non-com- pletion of the separation between Belgium and Holland in January last, and the tardiness with which the fact of the new convention was allowed to ooze out, Mr. Herries concluded by moving—

That it appears to this House, that the payment made by the Commissioners of the Treasury, on account of the interest due on the Russian Loan, in Holland, in January last, when the obligation and authority to make such payment had, according to the terms of the convention with Holland and Russia, and of the act of Parliament founded thereon, ceased and determined—and also when a new convention with Russia, not then communicated to this House, had been entered into, recognizing the necessity of recurring to Parliament for power to continue such payments under the circumstances which had attended the sepa- ration which had taken place between Holland and Belgium,—was an applica- tion of the public money not warranted by law.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON expressed his surprise at a question being again opened which had been fully discussed in January, and settled. The motion before the House involved three considerations—

First, whether, according to the faith of treaties, we were bound to make the payments of the sum stipulated by the treaty. of 1815; second, whether such a change had not taken place in the relations of the great Powers of Europe, and such an alteration had not occurred iu the state of nations, as was contemplated by the parties to those treaties ; third, whether, according to the letter of the treaties, his Majesty's Government had acted without due legal authority when they continued to make these payments.

Neither he, nor, he believed, his Majesty's Ministers, viewed the recent acts of the Russian Emperor with complacency ; both were averse from increasing unnecessarily the burdens of the people ; but the question was, what were the obligations of the country ; not what was the character of the person to whom it was bound, or its means of payment.

Russia had raised in Holland a sum of money ; and, in return for the services rendered to Europe by Russia, the agreement was, that one half of this money should be paid by Holland, and the other half by England ; but with this provi- sion, that the said payments should cease and determine whenever the Belgic pro- vinces should be severed from the dominions of the King of the Netherlands. Now he would ask the House, was or was not this stipulation a condition in fa- vour of Great Britain? Was it not considered, at the time this treaty was drawn up, most desirable for the British Government to obtain the intervention of Russia to maintain the union of the two countries, which was then thought to be the great security against the invasion of France? The separation of Bel- gium from Holland was effected by the energetic resistance of the Belgian pro- vinces to the sway of Holland,—a resistance arising from their own free-will, =suggested by any foreign influence. Unassisted, they achieved their own its- dependence. Under these circumstances, how did the obligation stand between Great Britain and Russia? Did Great Britain say to Russia—" I call upon you to support the policy by which the treaty between us was suggested, and at all hazards and sacrifices to march your army to Belgium, in order to reduce her again under the yoke of Holland?" No: Great Bntain said to Russia—" I do not call upon you to fulfil the obligations which you contracted on my behalf. My policy is changed; the circumstances of Europe and of the whole world have undergone an alteration; and I think that it will most conduce to the peace and happiness of Europe that Belgium should be an independent power. I there- fore beg of you not to interfere in the quarrel between her and Holland. I pray you to hold your hands." Great Britain did in fact more than this—she re-- quested Russia to become a contracting party to the independence of Belgium.. That being the case, would it be for the honour of this country to turn round and say to Russia—." Now that we have obtained your consent to the new arrange-

anent, We will mulct you of the 1,800,0001. to which you were eutitled under the old?"

He noticed the argument from the conclusion of a second convention on the subject of these payments, as well that from econemy touched upon by Mr. Herries-

It was asked why a new treaty was necessary, if no doubt existed with respect to the interpretation of the old one? He had before observed, that when trea-

ties were framed, it was impossible to anticipate all the changes of circumstances which might arise, or to foresee all the objections which might be raised by statesmen pos:sessing diseriminatinet minds seek as that of Mr. Herries. He thought that Ministers had fulfilled a sorted chliiettion ; which if they had not

done,they would have brought tlis'race on thernselvei, and their count] y. The right honourable gentleman had prealled up the constitetienal doetriue of regard for

the public money and nonpayment without the authority of Parliament ; but he

was certain that the people of England, anxious as they might be for economy, were too predent, bet well-informed, and too honourable, to desire that the Go-

vernment should relieve them frum the payment which prior stil ulations had unfortunately upon them, at the expense of the honour and integrity of the British Gove111:,•h L.

Mr. BAILING pit' a compliment to Dr. Lnshington's declamation ; which, hover, he contended, left the question precisely where Mr. Berries had placed it, as it did not meet or answer cow of that gentle- 3nan's arguments. Ile alluded to the declaration of Earl Grey at the Reform Festival the previous day, " that it Lucerne the count' y to take a :firm and imposing attitude, because questions of foreign policy which it Nvas necessary to settle, were yet undecided."

Hod these wine!: Hien from a voting member of Parnonent in the beat of +debate, they might have passeil without remark as of little moment ; but no man who knew the discretion. of Lord Grey mold think that they were not of tirst-rate importance. They might apply to the Lord Peivy Seal who bad been sent out to Russia, to do no one knew what—but perhatte, as some might con- clude, to :L,StIllie tfl" imposing attitude," though dinibtle'ss Lord Grey meant no offence to any ien:sun. Ile was not aware that they were going to march into :Poland ; anti it seemed to hint that the noble eiirl's expressious could not pos- eddy refer to any thing else than the state of the Belgian questiun, on which it appeared that a mission had been sent to Russia. lie should hold it to be a wrong measure to enter into a treaty with Itus-ia Mr payment of the sum under con- sideration, at a period when the w hole ease was such as rendered it necessary for the Government to take what it called an "iiettiude." Colonel DAYIEs spoke of the Ministerial professions of economy, and asked how they could reconcile these to the continued pay:rents on account of tile loan.

Mr. .11.AeA t-C.,t,o observed, that Colonel Davies spoke as if England were tributary to Russia.

To exercise economy in a case of this description, the payment must be optional; fir he had mit yet heard anybody rise in the House and say that economy was to be pres:rved at the expense of national honour. If the common- Sense interpretation of the treaty called upon this country for its execution, the bonsai relic and gallant Tilemlier might as well call upon them to economize by a noble( i.ta of the Three per Cents., or a non-payment of Exchequer Bills. The questien width they were then engaged in debating, naturally divided itself into two pitits,—the first was, whether or not the country was bound, by the 3110St ObVi(ILZ,4 principles of public faith, to continue these payments; secondly, did Government act illegally in continuing them without obtaining a new act of Parliament thr the purpose? All the honourable Members who spoke upon the other side professed to pursue the object of keeping these questions perfectly dietiuct ; and vet, strangely enough, it happened that there was not one amongst them who dil. nut mix both these topics; and that confusion of those questions was strikingly conspicuous where Vattel was referred to. Referring to the Treaty of Isi, lie most admit, that if they examined the letter of that treaty, they would find that the proviso lied arisen, and that we were absolved from the payment of the debt. (Lour!: ehrersfrom oppusition.) Yes, accord- ing to the letter of the treaty we might be absJlved ; but were they now to be told for the first time, that the foreign policy of this great and renowned country was to he governed by such pettifoggiug rules of construction as those 3vhich were enunciated from the other stile?

Sir CHARLES 'WETHERELL spoke of the effects which the conduct of Ministers was 'likely to produce at the approaching elections ; though he denied that Mr. Herries's motion had any reference to them— The Secretary for Ireland was on the point of starting for Lancashire; the Chancellor of the Exchequer was thought certain of winning in his county ; the Secretary at War was sure of comm.- in again for Westminster • and the two Law Officers of the Crown for Nottingham and 3Iarylebone; so that it was not wonderful that they should endeavour to stand as well as possible with their constituents. They would, however, find it very awkward to reply to the question, why they had been guilty of such a gross dereliction of duty, that even an unreformed and rotten House of Commons had complained of the un- necessary and illegal payment of the public money.

Sir Charles admitted, in conclusion, that the Ministerial intentions were not bad ; but they were bound to ask for indemnity— All the Ministers who had ever held office since the Revolution—all the Tory Ministers—even Mr. Pitt, stiff-backed though he was—had come down to the House when they had trespassed on the law, and demanded a bill of indemnity. In this case, the reasons for following the same course were very strong, for the motives of the Ministers, he admitted, were very good; and indemnity would, therefore, have been granted them, and they ought to have applied for it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after 'a vindication of the opinion which be had given in favour of the legality of the payments, and which, he observed, could have no possible reference to the convention of No- vember, inasmuch as it was given in June,—demanded to know what The Opposition were prepared to do or advice?

For what purpose was the debate got up ? Would they have them refuse to pay the money ?Ay or no? Were they prepared to say that the money ought not to be paid ? He believed that they couldnot say they would. It was to the treaty they were to look—to the treaty, construed in a liberal sense, according to its spirit rather than according to its letter. If the other side were of opinion that they should not look to the treaty, he hoped they would say so.

Mr. FREDERICK Pou.oex dwelt at great length on the fact, that the convention had not been mentioned when the question was last before the House. To . this Lord ALTHORP replied, by observing that the convention was then an instrument of no validity.

Sir EDWARD Strontrr thought the only question was, had there been a breach of the law.

Lord PALMERSTON said, the Opposition had been asked if they in- tended to vote against the payment; a very simple question, yet one to which no answer had been returned. He reverted to-the history.of the treaty, as indicating the spirit in which it was drawn up Lord Castlereagh, in originally proposing the question to the llous,t, observed that the payment would only continue as lung as Belgium was separated from France ; from which it clearly appeared, that the severance that was then con- templated was a severance not only by force of arms, but also on the side of France in particular. But what were the real circumstances of the separation? They were entirely intrinsic and internal, arising in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands itself. When that separation took place, Great Britain had a right (he did not say that it ought to have employed that right) to re-establish the union by force of arms' xy but bitt course dill the Allies pursue? Holland applied to Great Britain, and the late Ministry declined interfering by force of arms ; Russia, on the contrary, expresed its willingness to march sixty thousand men into Belgium to re-establish the itterer of Holland, if England would agree to such a step ; but this also England ileelined. The fact therefore was, that England virtually signed and sealed the separation ; and consequently, :with what right could slue turn round on 'trash', and say, " You ltall suffer by the separation which we have accomplished ? " Ile noticed Mr. Baring's allusion to Lord Grey's speech—

It had been chlected to his noble friend that he had yesterday said the country

should take an imposing attitude. The I Met, looking at the circunistatalet by which Slit wao surnalte!etl. She should take an imposing attitude ; but lie trustel tiC ti Ill' WIIIt:,! never come when she took an attitude of imposition. If that I louse its colu-vn! to what had heen done—if it set at nought lime stipulatiuns of solemn ire:: in, lie believed that tin: character of the country would si If usiath thiit ije shutdd [Heir of hr beiug aide ever after to cnter ii;!LPIte ecia!10:0it NVI 11 t lie Cominent, or to obtain

the confidence wfiell it was lute s most Leees)iiry a natiott should possess

among time othe:' uf the earth. Sir llo;:r.trr Pitt. argued, as Sir Edward Sug.den laid, that the legal question was tic only one which the :House was bound to con- sider— The proper question for the IT:eote to (em 1,1cr ivis, wb:Aber the issueof money made in Jaeuary, in peyinclit of this int,:.est, was warranted by law ; and on that quesliem and in erd, r to prevent lite conduct of the Government on this

os.c.eeee free: b. hitii a precedent, he should put his vote on the jour- nals, o/i/ve,::/i i im I be attended with tile consequence of the noble lord's re-

signation. t 1 i- i t el' was, as had been contended to he, a eases omb,sas in the treaty. si that did noi .;:.• :icy the conduct of the Govern ascot, who ought to have aplied to Paeliament to supply that omitted case, and who were not warrant:A hy law in zuAii,g without the authority of Parliament. The. coin .e they had pursuid would have beim correet if the treaty had ilt`ell one that depeniled on tIie Crown for its construction and maintenance; but it did not,— it a treaty that could only be performed, inasmuch as it was for the payment of money, by the sanetion of 'Parliament ; and therefore the conduct pursued by the Government was utterly teljustiiielde. If the noble lord meant to contend that the subsidy was granted to limsia so long as her policy with regard to Holland and Buigium concurred with the polio.- of England, liow did time noble lord aceount for the eireemstanee that teeneelieg to the treaty, England was bound to pay the subsidy, even though the high comm.: Mg parties were at war? Did that prove that the subsidy was made in consideration of Russia's pursuing the same policy towards Belgium as England ? Lord JOIIN ilt•SITI.T. repented t::e expression of surprise, that none of the advocates of tho amendment would speak out on the plain ques- tion, whether the country was bound in honour to continue these pay- ments or not ?

Sir Robert l'ecl bad indeed said, that if bound in honour, we ought to pay them ; but he had cautiously abstained from slying whether he thought Minis- ters in lionnur were bound to pay them, or lent. If l'ilinisters were bound iu ho- nour and good faith to continue these payiti,Ads, what just ground of complaint had he against them? lie had no po•silde nnotive for taking up this part of the question, except for the sake of aiding in a lsecretion, and winding up sentences with allusions to the expenditure of the publ;e money. If the supporters of the ainendment considered that in honour and gitod faith we were not bound to pay the debt at all, the saute objection existed to a payment in July as in January.

Mr. CROKElt put the ease of England going to war with Russia ; and said, that in such a case, to make these payments would be to sub- sidize an enemy ; which was too preposterous a thing for him to give his sanction to.

Lord PALMERSTON- " The Treaty of 1815 contained a clause, providing that the payments on the part of the King of Great Britain should not be interrupted in the event of war breaking out between either of the three contracting parties. I wish to ask the right honourable gentleman, whether he then gave his vote for that preposterous thing, the subsidization of an enemy during war?" (Repeated cheers.) Mr. CROKER attempted a distinction of the cases; but he was

drowned by cries of " !"

The House divided : for the amendment, 107; against it, 243; ma- jority for Ministers, 46. The House then went into Committee, pro forma; and the Chair- man having reported progress, obtained leave to sit again on Monday.

2. Basil TITHES. The bill of Mr. Stanley on this subject was brought under discussion on Wednesday ; for which day it stood on the Orders ; but, after a conversation of some length, it was, on the mo- tion of Mr. CALLAGHAN, adjourned to last night.

On the resumption of the debate, Mr. CALLAGHAN expressed his in- tention, though reluctantly, to oppose the bill; and Mr. W. Y. PEEL to support it. After a few observations from Mr. BENETT, Lord KILLEEN, and Mr. J. CAMPBELL, Mr. O'CONNELL rose. He asked who and of what classes were the opponents of tithes?— Not the Catholics alone; 'not the Presbyterians alone ; not the Dissenters alone ; but even the very Protestants of the Church of England had in great numbers joined in this combination, as it was called. When, therefore, we have such a union of sentiment throughout the country, this paltry and pitiful man- ner of dealing with the subject shows nothing of the grasp of the statesman, or of the affection of a patriot.

ters had chosen, at the eleventh hour, to institute prosecutions, with an indecency of which no former Ministry had ever been guilty. 'After remarking on the Irish Reform Bill, and the causes of its enlargement,— namely, the opposition of the English People to the plan of the Minis- ters,—Mr. O'Connell went on- " What the right honourable gentleman is now asking- is neither more nor less than that 9,600,000/. should he accumulated to purchaserland for the benefit of the Protestant Church of Ireland. This is his chimera for the satisfaction of Ireland ; this is his dream of Irish tranquillity; and to heighten the effect, he proposes, in order that the ;all& may he better managed, to place it in the hands of an ecclesiastical corporation. Surely, never digl mailman dream such a dream within the walls of Bedlam ! What r does he think the people of Ireland are in love with corporations? If the Irish have any one especial disgust, it is towards

corporations. They .have only known corporations as interfering with justice and with equity—as Intruding on the privacy of private—as advocating jobbino and dishonesty—as destroying trade and commerm : and now, to make this little bargain more amiable, it is to be upheld by an ecclesiastical corporation."

He ridiculed the notion of providing for the Irish Establishment by giving it land, while it had already more land than it could manage. It would have been better for Ministers to come down with a vote of credit. If such had been proposed, he would have been the foremost to support it. Ile spoke of the attempt at intimidating the people into payment: it was playing with the ashes of the volcano while heaving to another eruption. Ile spoke of the nature of tithes-

" What do we propose? We propose to quiet the people of Ireland, by tell- ing them that tithes are extinguished. The Report of the Committee has already told them :a, in name ; but we would tell them so in reality, and pre- vent that Report being a mockery. But perhaps we shall be told that we can- not extinguish tithes, because they are the property of other persons. I do not admit this, and I will tell the House why. If the 'landowner does not choose to

• till his land, he will have no tithe to pay the tithe, therefore, clearly is a tax on the use of the land ; and it is remarkable that the raw material pays nothing towards that tax. In short, like many other taxes, it is paid by the consumer. The effect of tithes is to make provisious dearer ; and, consequently, every man • who eats pays his portion of the tithe. At first the landlord, the tenant, and the public would mutually gain by the extinction; but in a few years the public would be the sole gainers."

He noticed the absurdity of the plan by which it was proposed to levy the tithe under Mr. Stanley's bill-

. " He proposes to make the landlords of Ireland his receivers. But does he know that many of those landlords are deeply in debt? Did he ever hear of an instance in which a gentleman of 10,000/. a year, had a charge of 9,500/. on his estate ? And would he put his tithe-charge on that ? It he would, the gentleman had better at once make hint a present of the estate, and wash his hands Of it. But perhaps he intends to spread the tithe over the whole estate, including the charges : if so, it only shows the entire ignorance in which he is legislating for Ireland. Did be ever hear of the process a eustodium in Ireland? Does he know that an estate may be seven, eight, nine deep in eastodium, and • that the creditors are obliged to scramble and do the best they can ? I myself knew a property on which there were eleven custodees, with the landlord him- self in receipt of the rent as second custodee • and, under such circumstances as these, I should like to know where the tithe-money is to come from ? Does the right honourable gentleman also know that there are in the Irish law what are called elegies, which will also stand in the way of the tithe-charge? Does he know that there are trespassers in possession of estates ? Does lie know that there are overholding tenants ? These are things, I imagiue, none of which have entered into the right honourable gentleman's philosophy ; and I suppose I might as well talk Arabic to hint as mention them ; and yet every one of these are necessary ingredients in the great revolution of property which lie is sug- gesting to the House. If it was his intention to invent a scheme for the pur- pose of throwing the landlords into the hands of the people, and for making \white feet and black feet of the Gentry of Ireland, with all his iugenuity, he could never have discovered a plan better suited for the purpose than this."

Mr. O'Connell concluded— . .

" What I chiefly desire is, that the people of England should fully understand what it is that we propose. We propose the abolition of tithes ; we propose to respect the vested interests of the present incumbents; we do not even want to strike a single shilling a year off the income of time present Protestant Clergy; • and, in conclusion, I tell the Tight lionaurable Secretary, that though there is a . bargain which he can make now, it is one which he will not be able to make a year hence.' • •

• Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the peace of Ireland was what they were all seeking, but the course taken by Mr. O'Connell seemed only calcu- lated to disturb it. They had been anxious to give the Catholics of Ireland an equality of rights, but he could not:allow them to take ad- _vantage. of -their numbers to turn equality into tyranny. Lord John then, after a few general 'remarks, entered into an examination • of: the points of difference between the Government plan and Mr. Grattan's

• resolutions.

• Mr. Grattan stated in those resolutions, that tithes ought to be extinguished . in substance as well as in name ; but he contended, that the bill of Mr. -Stanley would.substantially extinguish tithes; -and therefore, in that respect, there was no matter at issue between the two parties. But the resolutions went on to state, in a sort of -parenthesis as it were, that the Church of Ireland ought to cease to exist. This, indeed, was a considerable difference ; and he had been • puzzled with the vagueness and the want of intelligibility in the resolution, until he found that the vacuum was supplied by the evidence of Dr. Doyle before the . Tithe. Committee. On consulting that evidence, he perceived that Dr. Doyle Bad made this statement—" I think the tithing system ought to be for ever and utterly abolished, and a land-tax, not exceeding -one-tenth, substituted in its

• place; the produce of which tax, as well as the Church lands, should be placed at the disposal of Parliament, or of the Royal Commission, to enable them to • • supply what was necessary for the support of the poor, for the assistance of the , ministers of religion, for the education of the children, and for the promotion of ' works Of Public necessity or of national improvement." • He•clid not think that it was a seasonable time to discuss the proposition of Mr. O'Connell. Consider- • ing that we were now far advanced in the month of July, the House would pledge itself unnecessarily, and would involve the three branches of the Legisla- ture, by agreeing to a resolution, of which the effect was, that the Church of Ireland ought to be abolished, and that its funds ought to be applied to Public PUrPo.ses- •

He alluded to his former votes on the subject of the Irish Church Establishment- Inthe year 1824, when the nuestion was, whether the Church of Ireland . had not a greater number of Ministers, and a larger amount of revenue, than the interests of the Protestant religion required,lae.yoted.in the affirmative; and he must say, that although he might not now approve of the Mini in which that vote was made, he was still of the same opinion : he thought that the Protestant Church of Ireland was too large, not lady for the purpose of giving

instruction to that part of the population of Ireland which professed the Pro- testant faith, but lie thought it too large for its own permanent stability. Therefore, whenever the question might arise in its proper day, and at its ap- pointed time he should be ready to maintain the views which he had formerly expressed. It was certainly the opinion which he had always held, that it was the duty of the Legislature to provide for the religious and moral instruction of the people of Irelmul in a way in which that had never yet been done. What was intended by our ancestors in the establishment of the Church of Ireland for religious and moral purposes, had not answered that end ; but when the Legis- lature had to consider anew in what way that end might best be attained, it was bound to respect—as he believed, every member of that House was ready to respect—the rights of those who had existing interests in the present arrange- ments.

Mr. LEFROY went into a calculation to show that the Protestant clergy were not too numerous for the Protestant population. He spoke of an intention of the Catholic party to hand over the tithes to the

Catholic clergy. •

Sir JOHN BURKE most peremptorily denied that any such intention ever existed.

Mr. HENRY GRATTAN said, the affairs of Ireland were managed as if they had been given up, not to an Irish Secretary, but an Irish Bishop.

Mr. STANLEY said, he was thankful for the compliment, but he did not think he would ever become even an English Bishop. He said, If he had, as was alleged, come to the consideration of this question in ignorance, it was not for want of study. The resolutions of Mr. James Grattan effected nothing but the postponement of the question to another session. He commented on the endeavours which in various ways were made by the Irish landlords to throw the burden of tithes off their own shoulders— His bill would really go to the extinction of tithes, in the sense in which that impost was a grievance, leaving it in the hands of Parliament to make a future arrangement as to Church property, and placing at its disposal a tangible fund, and keep it front being dependent on those who refused to pay tithes- by a law- less combination. His bill would further relieve the ground-down tenants, and save these insolvent people from the claims of the clergy, which they were unable to meet. Further, his bill provided a feasible and easy means of redeeming the tithes, provided the landlords chose to pay them themselves, by authorizing them to do that at a rate of 15 per cent. less than their present value. The English landlords would be glad to have such an advantage, and be able to re- deem their tithes on such terms. The bill he proposed certainly did not meet all the grievances of the tithe system, but it did put an end to the conflicts between the tithe proctor and the peasantry; it would put an end to the colli- sion between the clergy and the people ; it would throw the burden of pay- ing the tithes where it ought to be borne, on the landlords ;- and it would at the same time give into their hands the means of relieving themselves to a great degree of all the real evils of the system. At the same time, it would leave, which the resolutions did not, the question of the appropriation of Church property to a future Parliament. That was not the ease with the resolutions; which, though they did nothing at present, pledged the House to a future ap- propriation of Church property.

The discussion was continued for some time, by Mr. MULLINS, Lord EBRINGTON, Mr. DAWSON, MT. CRAMPTON, and Sir ROBERT PEEL,—after some discussion on the question of order, as Sir Robert had spoken before on the same question. Mr. WALKER, Mr. CHAP3IAN, Mr. PRAED, MT. M. O'CONNELL, Major MACNAMARA, and Lord INGESTRIE, also spoke briefly on the subject.

The House at length divided on the question for leave to bring in the bill: for it, 124; against it, 32; majority for Ministers, 92.

3. Scorca REFORM BILL. On Monday, on the question of the motion for going into Committee, the Earl of MANSFIELD delivered a long and elaborate eulogy on the excellences of the present system of representation in Scotland, which he thought ought to be Preserved as a counterpoise to the freedom of election which the Reform Bill of England was calculated to give. He, however, declined dividing the House on the question.

The Earl of Caairennowisf thought it somewhat singular to have it proposed to preserve the close system of Seotland While the compara- tively open system of England was 'altered. No doubt, the greatest quietness and regularity prevailed in the Scotch elections' as'at present managed : so 'quietly; indeed, were they gone abbut, that the people of the country seldom knew any thing about them Until they were over. The Earl of HADDINGTON moved an instruction to the Committee to provide for the representation of the Scotch Universides, by giving one member to those of Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and one to those of Glasgow and St. Andrew's. Lord Haddington read a statement to prove that out of the literary and medical degrees a respectable con- stituency might be easily provided in both instances—

Degrees in Arts, • Degrees in Medicine.

in 30 Years. iii 30 Years.

Edinburgh •

199 2,524

Glasgow 712 410 St. Andrew's 59 649 Marischal College, Aberdeen 1,018 282 King's College, Aberdeen 740 286

Lord BROUGHAM said he was rather inclined to disapprove of giving representatives to seats of learning at all. If the thing were to do over again, he would pause before he gave them to Oxford and Cam- bridge— ' The stillness of letters ought not to be broken in upon by the turmoil of an election ; and though not so much Mischief had been done as might have been expected, he doubted if the evil had not very considerably preponderated, by making the graduates of the Universities parties in • political contentions, to which those who had passed their early life in the shade of college retirement— who were employed .in the instruction of youth, or in the duties of the sacred office—were not adapted; which were not ornamental to them, and were Useless to the public. He regretted, indeed, that instead of not giving members to the Scottish Universities,-the Bill had not exempted the Scottish clergy from the almost inevitable necessity, by the exercise of the elective franchise, of mixing with politics. - He would not, however, propose any change in that respect; as, from what had passed in the other House, it would seem invidious ; and • from letters he had 'received on the- subject, he feared that it .might cause the Scotch clergy to mingle in politics, instead of keeping them apart from them.

When the House had gone into Committee, on the 1st clause being read, the Earl of Haddington moved to substitute 61 members for 53. He justified the augmentation by an argument drawn from the popula- tion and taxes of Scotland, compared with those of England.

Lord BROUGHAM remarked on the looseness of such arguments generally He could pick out 23 Scotch counties, which, with a population of A00,000, sent 23 members ; while the West Riding of Yorkshire, with a population of 980,000, sent only two members. The little county of Selkirk sent a member ; and, according to the arithmetical rule of his noble friend, Yorkshire, estimated by the standard of Selkirk, should send 140 menitiers. There was no end of such calculations.

On the ad clause, the Earl of MANSFIELD asked why several parishes of Perth and Stirling [To Culross, I'ossaway, aluckliart, Lo- gic, Alva] had been taken from those counties, and added to Clackman- nan and Kinross a He understood the people of these parishes were very much dissatisfied with the change. The Earl of ROSEBERY said, Clackmannan and Kinross formed together a very small county, and the parishes alluded to were geogra- phically situate in it. Earl GREY said, the dissatisfaction mentioned by Lord Mansfield was new information to him : each of the parishes so dissatisfied had sent petitions in favour of the contemplated separation.

The other clauses, as far as the 8th, were then agreed to ; and the House adjourned.

This Bill passed last night, after a few remarks by the Earl of HAD- DINGTON on the disfranchising of the superiority voters without com- pensation; and by Lord BROUGHAM in commendation of the Bound- aries Commissioners. The Duke of BUCCLEUGH expressed a hope that the House, which had been placed in a peculiar position in respect of all the Reform Bills, would speedily reassume its independence.

The time for receiving protests against the bill was, on the motion of the Earl of HADDINGTON, extended to Monday.

4. Tann REFORM Btu. On Monday, on the House going into Committee, Mr. D. BROWNE moved the disfranchisement of Portarl- ington, New Ross, Enniskillen, Mallow, Bandon, Athlone, Cashel, Coleraine, Dungarvon, and Ennis ; and that, of the-ten members, the city of Dublin should get one additional, the county of Cork two, the county of Galway and the county of Mayo one each and that the live remain- ing members be thrown into the counties in which the last five boroughs were situated.

Mr. STANLEY noticed the proposal to give an additional member to :Mayo; where it would be impossible to procure such a constituency, notwithstanding the population of that county, as an additional member necessarily called for. He mentioned a remarkable fact in proof of this—

This was placed beyond the reach of cavil by the allocation returns of the fund subscribed in July last year, for the relief of the finnishing poor in that county. That return showed, that, out of 360,000 inh i abitants n Mayo, not

less than 2.24,520 sought relief from the fund.

No division took place on the motion ; which Mr. BROWNE said he put merely to record his sentiments.

Mr. CALLAGHAN moved an amendment for the purpose of placing joint occupants on the same footing in Ireland as in England. On the suggestion of Mr. STANLEY, this was allowed to stand over for con- sideration when the postponed clauses should be brought tip.

On clause 54th, Mr. JEPHSON moved his amendment extending the elective franchise of Trinity College to Masters and Bachelors of Arts. He noticed the consequence of limiting the franchise to stu- dents only— The students were mostly intended for the Church or for the Bar ; and if the right of voting was left exclusively in their hands, they would elect either a stickler for ecclesiastical abuses or a lawyer ; and though he had the greatest re- spect for the latter class of persons' he must say, that he thought there was enough of them in the House already; and he did not believe them to possess in any eminent degree those qualities which were essential in a member of Parlia- ment—industry and common sense.

Mr. CROKER said, that to extend the franchise to Bachelors of Arts, would enable the out-voters completely to overpower the resident voters. He therefore proposed, as a mean between the two extremes, to extend it to Masters only.

After a short conversation Mr. Croker's amendment—in which, Lord ALTHORP observed, the House seemed generally to concur—was adopted.

Mr. CROKER afterwards suggested, that those who were entitled to take out the degree, should be allowed the benefit of a special com- mencement, in order that they might vote at the ensuing election; which suggestion Mr. STANLEY said he would consider.

The various schedules of the Bill were afterwards agreed to, with a few verbal amendments; and the report being brought up, it was agreed to be taken into consideration on Friday. The Report was brought up last night, and agreed to with the amendments; and the third reading was fixed for Monday.

5. ENGLISH BOUNDARIES BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this bill, on Monday, the Marquis of CLAI4RICARDE moved the substitution of ]Jursley, in West Gloucester, for Thombary, as the place of nomination : the former, he observed, from its position, was much better adapted for the purpose. Lord ELLENBOROUGH objected to Dursley, because it was a manufacturing town. Lord CLANRICARDE said, it was the distance of the town from the other points of the divi- sion that was to constitute its recommendation, not the character of its population. The Duke of RICHMOND expressed his concurrence in the Marquis's proposition. The House divided; when it was carried by 46 to 27. The bill, with the amendments of their Lordships, was then passed.

6. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS CONTEMPT BILL. On Wednesday, the Marouis of WESTMEATH entered into a long and rather warm argu- ment against this bill, for the purpose of showing, that instead of being aimed at a general grievance, its object was, by a retroactive process, aft inflict an injury on the Marquis. The object of the bill is to take

away the privilege of the Peerage in so far as it goes to protect the personal property of a Peer in contempt.

The LORD CHANCELLOR denied being at all influenced by the consi- deration of the Marquis's case. He was assured that public benefit would result from the bill, and such was its sole object. If the Mar- quis of Westmeath were a sufferer by it, it must be by his own fault.

The bill was read a third time on Thursday, and passed.

7. VAGRANTS Btu.. A bill has been for some time before the House of Commons, the object of which is to repeal the law which directs that on application for parish relief, Scotch or Irish paupers are, at the expense of the parish to which application is made, to be passed to their several homes. On Monday, Mr. HUME presented a petition against this bill. Mr. E. DENISON said, in consequence of the advanced stage of the present session, he would not press the bill; but would move it next session, if he were then in Parliament.

8. MAYNOOTH. On Tuesday, Mr. J. E. Goanox presented a petition from Glasgow against the grant to this institution. Ile moved that it be printed.

Mr. O'CoNNELL hoped he had read it more carefully than the last he presented, which described the Roman Catholics as idolaters. Mr. Simla said, the present petition charged the Government with supporting a Church which was "red with the blood of the saints."

Mr. GORDON said, that until there was a declaration by the House, that they would not receive petitions couched in the language used by the standards of our Establishments, he should feel that he failed an his duty, were be to refuse the presentation of such petitions.

The Gallery was cleared for a division ; but none took place, the motion being withdrawn.

9. BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY BILL. The London and Birmingham Railway Bill was on Tuesday thrown out in a Comm:ttec of the House or Lords, upon a resolution that the promoters had not made out such a ease as would warrant the forcing the railway through the lands and property of so great a proportion of dissentient landowners. The report of the Committee was brought up on Thursday, by Lord

WHARNCLIFFE.